The Delusion of "Free Will"

[PaulSacramento]

New, it ISN'T the "unmoved mover" argument.
That is your problem, you are trying for solve an argument that I didn't make.

The argument is this:
Why does fire start when you strike a match and not something else like ice?
It doesn't matter how many times the match may NOT light or light differently or it may break or whatever.
What matters is that when it does light, why does it produce fire and not ice?

[neo-x]

New, it ISN'T the "unmoved mover" argument.
That is your problem, you are trying for solve an argument that I didn't make.

The argument is this:
Why does fire start when you strike a match and not something else like ice?
It doesn't matter how many times the match may NOT light or light differently or it may break or whatever.
What matters is that when it does light, why does it produce fire and not ice?

Of course that is not the FM argument because that is a proper argument and quite a different one to what we discussed some pages back. What you are writing is not an argument, it is only a line of questions that I answered already.

Refer back to here:

Because react doesn't mean that its random every time, that only happens at quantum scale and once those attributes of reactions are set because of the elements produced because of and during the expansion they seem to stick, as no further fluctuation is affecting them unlike within the singularity.
...
or here:
THAT THERE IS NO FORCE ACTING ON THEM AT THE MOMENT TO BEHAVE OTHERWISE, UNLIKE THE SINGULARITY WHERE FORCES WERE ACTING ON THEM. caps for emphasis only. That is why the pebbles land at all because the initial random conditions resulted in a place where this could happen.

So it creates fire because that is what the initial conditions led to. Or that is why the pebbles land at all because the initial conditions led to it. Once they are out of the quantum field, no external force is trying to change their states and thus a match always creates fire and not ice.

[PaulSacramento]

Neo,
You just keep moving the goal posts with semantics.
It isn't so much that a force acts on them and A) comes from B), not the question is WHY A) and not D) or F) or V).

What happens in quantum state is no relevant since we are discussing the HERE and NOW.

Why does a struck match produce fire instead of ice or flowers?

[neo-x]

Neo,
You just keep moving the goal posts with semantics.
It isn't so much that a force acts on them and A) comes from B), not the question is WHY A) and not D) or F) or V).

What happens in quantum state is no relevant since we are discussing the HERE and NOW.

Why does a struck match produce fire instead of ice or flowers?

Not at all, you can disagree with my answer, but you can't say I haven't addressed your question. I have.
Your question also assumes the quantum state whether you agree with it or not. Because why you see fire instead of ice is exactly because what happened in the initial singularity. The quantum state led to the HERE and NOW, of course, it matters. The initial conditions matter.
The same way you see a baby with complete or incomplete features is because what happened in the cell and its replication. You can't divorce one from the other.

[Philip]

Neo: Phil's claim is that everything happens because God allows it, ultimately. I say no, some things happen because of a necessity of the reality of nature and how it works. It doesn't mean God wills or even allows it to happen.

WHAT???!!! So, things don't happen because God created and designed them and put them into play knowing precisely what they would do and result in - there's supposedly a "reality of nature" that God really has nothing to do with it? And "it doesn't mean God wills or even allows it to happen." Neo, your idea of God is unScriptural - that is very clear! EVERYTHING that came into existence is dependent upon God. And He has ALWAYS known everything about them. So, independent of God, you think there is some "reality of nature and how it works" - so that God isn't necessary in their development? Before you begin regurgitating science views that are unproven - that you've swallowed hook, line and sinker, you have denied what Scripture prolifically states. "For by Him ALL things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together".

As well, Neo, you've not addressed what you believe about Jesus' confirmation of the entire OT. Or how it would be possible for neither Christ or any apostle to make note of untruths in ANY of it. How is that possible? What do you believe about Jesus' confirmation? True or not? I'm not even sure if you believe Adam and Eve were real people that fell - perhaps first being created via evolutionary processes? Did they later have the image of God installed in them? Were their creation accounts totally bogus - created apart and after the animals, and independent of ANY other creatures? Jesus referred to their creation - and was rather silent upon anything to suggest they had ever been anything but humans. Jesus knew every aspect of the story of Adam and Eve's creations - not a word of warning or caution that they were in any way misleading or false - per what you suggest.

Neo: To the contrary, I am saying God is a not on the field, he is sitting on the benches, he is not in the play at all. I can say that he started the game or made the game happen. But he is truly not meddling in the game. The game has to go on by its own rules. If someone gets hurt while playing, or the "other side" scores a goal, it's consequential because of the nature of the game. The game is self sustaining because it's creator created it so.

You clearly believe in some strange type of deism - not the personal God who interacts, sometimes intervenes, who desires a personal relationship with His human creatures. So the "game is self-sustaining because its Creator created it so?" Do you not realize that this means HOW it operates, when, and with what abilities and interactions ARE because God has always been in control? What you say doesn't even make rational sense. Things just occur because they want to - and God has no role in allowing or disallowing it? Do you not see that this would mean He is subject to the "random," unintentional abilities of His creations - that He is indifferent to whatever occurs. That these things are not ultimately under His control at their creation or in their end results? Apparently, you don't realize the unfathomable interconnectedness that prophecies shows what will happen. And what we see, throughout the universe is great consistency and order - not all things randomly bashing about without purpose or predictability.

Here's a little Scriptural primer on what God controls: http://www.teachmethebible.info/questio ... ntrol.html

Neo: On one hand, in the latest post, he (Me/Philip) goes as far as to agree that control means even allowance or even "hands-off" as far as God is concerned but on the other hand, he also wants special intervention when needed to. Well, it's either that or it isn't. Either God is on the field participating or he isn't. What's control if you are hands off? It's so trivial and unnecessary.

Neo: This is like appealing to guided evolution. If evolution is true then it doesn't need guidance. To say that God controls it, then to me, is nothing but a word which has no true meaning as far the latest definition goes. However, in the sense that God ultimately created something definitely gives him the power to sustain everything, but then I submit that process like evolution aren't guided. The problem I see with Phil's argument is that God while even being "hands off" has still got an intended goal for processes like evolution even if He doesn't guide it. If it's going to be that way, why be "hands off" in the first place? And if he is actively guiding than why only guide evolution? why not guide other events in the world which hold far more relevance to issues such as love, loss, pain and suffering.

So silly, Neo - as whether God's control of events is done per interrupting how things would normally occur (through an instant, miraculous intervention), or through His established laws - which are also due to His designed control - God can do things either way, as He controls all parameters. What a ridiculous, false dichotomy! And, as previously mentioned, God INTENDED and PLANNED mankind, and always knew He would come to earth as Jesus to save a fallen world for those who would embrace His salvation. YOUR idea would be that mankind is a happenstance that God didn't control or necessarily intend their existence. Humans just "happened" to come into existence - as that's the unguided evolutionary view, that re-running evolution would have undetermined different results, each time run. So, did God plan to die for humans or not? Did He create humans in His image or not? Did He not always know He would do this? How could He not know what He would create and how He would interact with His creations, or what they would do or be capable of??? This also makes your contentions absurd - not to mention is entirely unScriptural.

Neo: And as I have said before, God has foreknowledge of everything including random processes such as evolution, but that doesn't mean pre-determined results, except prophecies. In other words God knew that man would come out from evolution. But evolution didn't happen so that man could come out of it.

Again, you are saying that God can create something that can produce an ultimate outcome He doesn't know of (I don't think you believe THAT), or at least one He doesn't desire, or that He is indifferent to their coming into existence? EVERY aspect of evolution, timing would have been dependent upon the necessary elements and conditions being in place. Even just the timing of what God unleashed, BEFORE any life, would have been a determinant, without ANY processes being possible. So, the processes themselves developed without God creating or guiding them? They had an intelligence and just stupendous dumb luck to produce what they did without any guidance. That's delusional! Or did He not produce programming and abilities per outcomes He could foresee and desire? And you should never speak of believing in prophecies - that, by the way, were ALWAYS known, and saying God doesn't control things. Because if He did not control things, OUTCOMES prophesied would not end as He desires them. Do you also think ultimate outcomes can end in a way God doesn't desire??? That flies in the face of a whole lot of Scripture. You seem to think God can create processes and results that can end in ways He doesn't want, or if morally or otherwise neutral (not necessarily good or bad) doesn't at least allow. He either allows a thing or not - this is true of all physical things God created. To MAKE a thing, is to allow it. And to make a thing that He knew all it would become and produce is controlled per HOW/ with whatever attributes and abilities He gave it/the parameters they would be limited by - EVEN IF, such were produced by whatever abilities He placed into motion that would allow their development, per the attributes He gave them. Such things didn't happen without things God set in motion - MEANING, first, He desired them to be set in motion, while also knowing all they would become. And all they would become would be dependent upon and limited to the capabilities and attributes God allowed / installed in them through HOW and WHEN they were made.

Did God always plan for men to come into existence or not? Did He not always plan to die for them as a God/human, while always knowing they would sin? And the idea that there could be a reality without God knowing that precisely how and when He set it in motion would determine its details, history, parameters, and end results would mean He is not the God of the Bible! If God always planned humans, always could SEE them before they existed, then this idea that He set a reality in to play that just happened to produce an earth and humans - it's inconceivable. Because earth, humans were INTENDED and always known, and all they've become, all we're dependent upon, would be impossible without what God first put into motion to produce them. He could ALWAYS see whatever He first put into motion and existence would produce, eternally so and before He brought their physical seeds into existence. If you don't think these things show God controls things, you have a different definition of the word "control" than I do!

[Philip]

As for what Neo insists is "unquestionable scientific fact," concerning the genetics of mankind, of how they could not have come from only two people - here is some very thoughtful analysis on that issue from Reasons to Believe. Note that the author Fazale Rana, Ph.D (in chemistry) was raised a Muslim "went from agnostic to a theist; from a theist to a Christian who embraced theistic evolution; and, finally, from an adherent of theistic evolution to one who now espouses progressive creationism."

Below Faz (I met him not long ago) weighs in on the issues surrounding the genetics - and as you'll see, the certainties are far from, well, certain:

A Critical Reflection on Adam and the Genome, Part 1: http://www.reasons.org/blogs/the-cells- ... me--part-1

A Critical Reflection on Adam and the Genome, Part 2: http://www.reasons.org/blogs/the-cells- ... me--part-2

Adam and Eve: A Primordial Pair or a Population? http://www.reasons.org/blogs/the-cells- ... population

Also, as I think the essays are important, with some really thoughtful ideas and good links, I've also linked it here on the forum: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 69#p226469

[Kurieuo]

I'm confused Philip, I read those links of Fuz's review. Or are you just undecided on this issue? That is, don't you embrace a human population scenario for Adam and Eve (i.e., pre-Adamic race in Gen 1 being different from Adam & Eve in Gen 2)? Yet Fuz disagrees, more aligns with my own beliefs with an Adam and Eve human origins.

[neo-x]

Neo: Phil's claim is that everything happens because God allows it, ultimately. I say no, some things happen because of a necessity of the reality of nature and how it works. It doesn't mean God wills or even allows it to happen.

WHAT???!!! So, things don't happen because God created and designed them and put them into play knowing precisely what they would do and result in - there's supposedly a "reality of nature" that God really has nothing to do with it? And "it doesn't mean God wills or even allows it to happen." Neo, your idea of God is unScriptural - that is very clear! EVERYTHING that came into existence is dependent upon God. And He has ALWAYS known everything about them. So, independent of God, you think there is some "reality of nature and how it works" - so that God isn't necessary in their development? Before you begin regurgitating science views that are unproven - that you've swallowed hook, line and sinker, you have denied what Scripture prolifically states. "For by Him ALL things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together".

As well, Neo, you've not addressed what you believe about Jesus' confirmation of the entire OT. Or how it would be possible for neither Christ or any apostle to make note of untruths in ANY of it. How is that possible? What do you believe about Jesus' confirmation? True or not? I'm not even sure if you believe Adam and Eve were real people that fell - perhaps first being created via evolutionary processes? Did they later have the image of God installed in them? Were their creation accounts totally bogus - created apart and after the animals, and independent of ANY other creatures? Jesus referred to their creation - and was rather silent upon anything to suggest they had ever been anything but humans. Jesus knew every aspect of the story of Adam and Eve's creations - not a word of warning or caution that they were in any way misleading or false - per what you suggest.

I think you are misreading some of my points. For instance, I have admitted foreknowledge in almost every post, how can I then claim that God doesn't know about something?

I do believe that Adam and Eve could have been real people who had an encounter with God, or God chose to interact with them. I do understand that the text really means that when it mentions them. And thus, find it ironic that you of all people don't believe it.

Jesus was silent about many things. I do think that perhaps what Jesus may have meant, not just the books but the people, the prophetic line etc, and obviously that I have no problem with. If however, Jesus was confirming O.T as a word to word replication, then I am not sure. It could very well be, that just like the sermon on the mount which is paraphrased and bonded together even though Christ didn't say those things in one, go, is a similar situation here done by the gospel authors. In any case, I understand that I am at a loss here, I can concede that the scriptures would maintain its internal consistency and thus it's better to say, all things considered, that Jesus did confirm the O.T.

However, I maintain my position. Adam and Eve were not the first humans through which all mankind descended and I realise this doesn't go with what Christ said, so there I am guilty of errancy, I admit I have no way to reconcile it. I also conclude this because regardless of what the text says (and it seems pretty straight), it is beyond speculation that Jesus and/or the gospel authors were certain of the Biblical story, there was no reason to doubt it.

Either way, I don't want to twist the scriptures.

You clearly believe in some strange type of deism - not the personal God who interacts, sometimes intervenes, who desires a personal relationship with His human creatures. So the "game is self-sustaining because its Creator created it so?" Do you not realize that this means HOW it operates, when, and with what abilities and interactions ARE because God has always been in control? What you say doesn't even make rational sense. Things just occur because they want to - and God has no role in allowing or disallowing it? Do you not see that this would mean He is subject to the "random," unintentional abilities of His creations - that He is indifferent to whatever occurs. That these things are not ultimately under His control at their creation or in their end results? Apparently, you don't realize the unfathomable interconnectedness that prophecies shows what will happen. And what we see, throughout the universe is great consistency and order - not all things randomly bashing about without purpose or predictability.

Here's a little Scriptural primer on what God controls: http://www.teachmethebible.info/questio ... ntrol.html

Phil, this right here is just a difference of how we perceive God, you have your reasons, I have mine. There is no argument which is basically good enough to decide one way or the other. I do think that such processes are possible, you don't. To clear up one last point, God can never be subject to random things because his foreknowledge precedes all.
It shows Phil, that you haven't really been reading my posts.

And if you see the universe it is exact opposite of what you believe, it is random chaos out there, galaxies colliding, supernovas going off. Whatever sources you have for saying this, are misleading at best. The reason you think you are safe is that you are on such a small part of the universe that it is trivial. Don't worry, our universe is "designed" to be a death trap for all life. If the universe kept expanding at its current rate, there will be nothing left or if it contracted there will be nothing left. No matter how much life you have here, the precision and order and great consistency etc etc. It will amount to nothing.

So silly, Neo - as whether God's control of events is done per interrupting how things would normally occur (through an instant, miraculous intervention), or through His established laws - which are also due to His designed control - God can do things either way, as He controls all parameters. What a ridiculous, false dichotomy! And, as previously mentioned, God INTENDED and PLANNED mankind, and always knew He would come to earth as Jesus to save a fallen world for those who would embrace His salvation. YOUR idea would be that mankind is a happenstance that God didn't control or necessarily intend their existence. Humans just "happened" to come into existence - as that's the unguided evolutionary view, that re-running evolution would have undetermined different results, each time run. So, did God plan to die for humans or not? Did He create humans in His image or not? Did He not always know He would do this? How could He not know what He would create and how He would interact with His creations, or what they would do or be capable of??? This also makes your contentions absurd - not to mention is entirely unScriptural.

God knew humans would happen, foreknowledge, again. As for the image of God, I don't know what that means, surely not a beard and nipples. If we are talking about giving them a conscience or a spirit, perhaps that sounds more like it, hence I agree but that must have come later after humans arrived on the scene. As for the rest, of course, God died for us and he always knew he would.

And it's true that the unguided evolutionary view would have different results if run each time, but again, God would know which one would be the one that brought us, so to say. As you can see in the homo genus, there were plenty of species that branched out. So in this sense, God always knew and intended which one he'd be saving.

Again, you are saying that God can create something that can produce an ultimate outcome He doesn't know of (I don't think you believe THAT), or at least one He doesn't desire, or that He is indifferent to their coming into existence? EVERY aspect of evolution, timing would have been dependent upon the necessary elements and conditions being in place. Even just the timing of what God unleashed, BEFORE any life, would have been a determinant, without ANY processes being possible. So, the processes themselves developed without God creating or guiding them? They had an intelligence and just stupendous dumb luck to produce what they did without any guidance. That's delusional! Or did He not produce programming and abilities per outcomes He could foresee and desire? And you should never speak of believing in prophecies - that, by the way, were ALWAYS known, and saying God doesn't control things. Because if He did not control things, OUTCOMES prophesied would not end as He desires them. Do you also think ultimate outcomes can end in a way God doesn't desire??? That flies in the face of a whole lot of Scripture. You seem to think God can create processes and results that can end in ways He doesn't want, or if morally or otherwise neutral (not necessarily good or bad) doesn't at least allow. He either allows a thing or not - this is true of all physical things God created. To MAKE a thing, is to allow it. And to make a thing that He knew all it would become and produce is controlled per HOW/ with whatever attributes and abilities He gave it/the parameters they would be limited by - EVEN IF, such were produced by whatever abilities He placed into motion that would allow their development, per the attributes He gave them. Such things didn't happen without things God set in motion - MEANING, first, He desired them to be set in motion, while also knowing all they would become. And all they would become would be dependent upon and limited to the capabilities and attributes God allowed / installed in them through HOW and WHEN they were made.

Did God always plan for men to come into existence or not? Did He not always plan to die for them as a God/human, while always knowing they would sin? And the idea that there could be a reality without God knowing that precisely how and when He set it in motion would determine its details, history, parameters, and end results would mean He is not the God of the Bible! If God always planned humans, always could SEE them before they existed, then this idea that He set a reality in to play that just happened to produce an earth and humans - it's inconceivable. Because earth, humans were INTENDED and always known, and all they've become, all we're dependent upon, would be impossible without what God first put into motion to produce them. He could ALWAYS see whatever He first put into motion and existence would produce, eternally so and before He brought their physical seeds into existence. If you don't think these things show God controls things, you have a different definition of the word "control" than I do!

Phil, much of this again is just a rehash of what you have written a thousand times already, just calling everything I write, silly, delusional, dumb, inconcieveable and just insisting that what you are saying is more right. I have replied to all of this before as well.

I think that such a creation is possible. You don't think it is. Please understand this, it doesn't matter what you think is possible or not. In the end, evidence decides what is possible or isn't.

As for what Neo insists is "unquestionable scientific fact," concerning the genetics of mankind, of how they could not have come from only two people - here is some very thoughtful analysis on that issue from Reasons to Believe. Note that the author Fazale Rana, Ph.D (in chemistry) was raised a Muslim "went from agnostic to a theist; from a theist to a Christian who embraced theistic evolution; and, finally, from an adherent of theistic evolution to one who now espouses progressive creationism."

Below Faz (I met him not long ago) weighs in on the issues surrounding the genetics - and as you'll see, the certainties are far from, well, certain:

A Critical Reflection on Adam and the Genome, Part 1: http://www.reasons.org/blogs/the-cells- ... me--part-1

A Critical Reflection on Adam and the Genome, Part 2: http://www.reasons.org/blogs/the-cells- ... me--part-2

Adam and Eve: A Primordial Pair or a Population? http://www.reasons.org/blogs/the-cells- ... population

Also, as I think the essays are important, with some really thoughtful ideas and good links, I've also linked it here on the forum: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 69#p226469

The reason why this should not be taken seriously, is because of the number of homo species we have found so far, 7 of them very close to modern humans. This evidence of population just flies in the face of what Fuz is claiming in those articles. We know that populations arise together and die as well. It is a simple fact of biology.

The models he refers back to are backed up by the fossil record and DNA mapping. Yes, there are some things which are not known or certain at the moment but that is not what Fuz would have you believe. We don't know if Humans arose out of Africa alone or there were populations all over the world that grew together. That is not certain, the DNA mapping is insufficient at the moment to rule out all possibilities, yet the most evidence suggests an out of Africa scenario. however, there is not any question about populations evolving. There is no way that an entire human population can come from one pair. You don't even need a lot of data to verify this. The amount of diversity we see is just simply not there. It is impossible.

Just take one example, why don't a caucasian couple can't produce an Asian baby or vice versa or a black one or an aborgine? They can't even produce it eventually even in 100 generations. Because the same type of DNA and diseases and other genetic data is being circulated in the population. You need a population for that diversity to happen.

[neo-x]

As for what Neo insists is "unquestionable scientific fact," concerning the genetics of mankind, of how they could not have come from only two people - here is some very thoughtful analysis on that issue from Reasons to Believe. Note that the author Fazale Rana, Ph.D (in chemistry) was raised a Muslim "went from agnostic to a theist; from a theist to a Christian who embraced theistic evolution; and, finally, from an adherent of theistic evolution to one who now espouses progressive creationism."

Below Faz (I met him not long ago) weighs in on the issues surrounding the genetics - and as you'll see, the certainties are far from, well, certain:

A Critical Reflection on Adam and the Genome, Part 1: http://www.reasons.org/blogs/the-cells- ... me--part-1

A Critical Reflection on Adam and the Genome, Part 2: http://www.reasons.org/blogs/the-cells- ... me--part-2

Adam and Eve: A Primordial Pair or a Population? http://www.reasons.org/blogs/the-cells- ... population

Also, as I think the essays are important, with some really thoughtful ideas and good links, I've also linked it here on the forum: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 69#p226469

And to add to my previous post, it is a rather weak defence, Phil. What you are basically leaning on is that there isn't enough data to say one way or another, at the moment. And while I disagree, there's plenty of data, I still wonder, 30 years ago we didn't even have that. So as far as Fuz's objection, and to your's is concerned, it is really only a matter of time.

What will you resort to when we'll have evidence, beyond reproach? I hope your defence isn't hinged on this can never be shown to be right?

It is really an argument using defeaters. There's no upside to it and your best bet is that the other side is hopefully wrong.

From his article:

5 Reasons Why Humanity Didn't Begin as a Population

Evolutionary biologists argue for this mainstream idea (that there were many first humans, not just two), but I’m reluctant to accept these claims for a number of reasons.1

1. The idea that humanity arose as a population is a theory-laden concept that is a necessary entailment of the evolutionary paradigm. Biologists view evolution as a population-level phenomenon. Populations evolve—individuals don’t. As a consequence, there can’t be a primordial pair—if one views human origins from an evolutionary framework. To put it another way, humans must have emerged from a population by definition.

2. The methods used to determine population sizes rely on simplified and idealized mathematical models that are highly sensitive to input parameters. Because of that, the population numbers need to be viewed as rough estimates, at best.

3. These models do a poor job of taking into account the effects of population structure, migrations, and gene flow, all of which can lead to misleading population size calculations.2

4. Population size methods have not been validated. That is, there are not any studies that demonstrate that these methods produce accurate results for population size estimates, when applied to known situations. Studies in conservation biology suggest that these models don’t accurately predict genetic variability when the original population size is known. As a case in point, in three separate studies involving mouflon sheep, Przewalski’s horses, and gray whales, genetic diversity (measured generations after the initial population) was much greater than expected based on the models.

5. Other studies in conservation biology raise questions about the validity of the mathematical relationships that undergird the population size methods. In fact, these concerns prompted one research team to question if these problems invalidate population size estimates in humans. These researchers state, “Recently, however, Bazin et al. (2006) have argued that mtDNA variation is a poor indicator of population size in animals. . . . This raises the question of whether mtDNA is in fact a reliable predictor of human population size.”3

I hope you see my point, Fuz and you are, even in denial, accepting that it's only a lack of data that proves you right. And it's a very weak form of argument.

And further to my point, as K also noted, do you believe that Adam & Eve weren't first humans?

[PaulSacramento]

Neo,
You just keep moving the goal posts with semantics.
It isn't so much that a force acts on them and A) comes from B), not the question is WHY A) and not D) or F) or V).

What happens in quantum state is no relevant since we are discussing the HERE and NOW.

Why does a struck match produce fire instead of ice or flowers?

Not at all, you can disagree with my answer, but you can't say I haven't addressed your question. I have.
Your question also assumes the quantum state whether you agree with it or not. Because why you see fire instead of ice is exactly because what happened in the initial singularity. The quantum state led to the HERE and NOW, of course, it matters. The initial conditions matter.
The same way you see a baby with complete or incomplete features is because what happened in the cell and its replication. You can't divorce one from the other.

Even in the quantum state, where physics CAN break down, you still have to address why A happens instead of B.
And you are not doing that.
This is all about potentiality and actuality Neo and I think you know that.
A thing can ONLY become something else IF it has the potential to be that something else.
It CAN NOT become anything it does NOT have the potential to become.
Agreed?
In in the Quantum universe.

[neo-x]

Neo,
You just keep moving the goal posts with semantics.
It isn't so much that a force acts on them and A) comes from B), not the question is WHY A) and not D) or F) or V).

What happens in quantum state is no relevant since we are discussing the HERE and NOW.

Why does a struck match produce fire instead of ice or flowers?

Not at all, you can disagree with my answer, but you can't say I haven't addressed your question. I have.
Your question also assumes the quantum state whether you agree with it or not. Because why you see fire instead of ice is exactly because what happened in the initial singularity. The quantum state led to the HERE and NOW, of course, it matters. The initial conditions matter.
The same way you see a baby with complete or incomplete features is because what happened in the cell and its replication. You can't divorce one from the other.

Even in the quantum state, where physics CAN break down, you still have to address why A happens instead of B.
And you are not doing that.
This is all about potentiality and actuality Neo and I think you know that.
A thing can ONLY become something else IF it has the potential to be that something else.
It CAN NOT become anything it does NOT have the potential to become.
Agreed?
In in the Quantum universe.

Yes, I agree with the principle, Paul. For instance, we can agree that the singularity had potential and then went to be actual. Or in the further past -that the quantum field had a potential and went on to be a singularity.

Where I think we would disagree is that within QM, the potentiality is not specific to actuality, specific being the keyword here. There is potential, but that can translate into a number of actuals, it is not pre-determined. That is why we say standard physics breakdown here because normal cause and effect do not apply anymore. In other words, potentiality to actuality applies in the QM, however, not specifically.

It CAN NOT become anything it does NOT have the potential to become.

I would re-word this - it can become any number of things because its potential is not specific.

You rightfully observe with the benefit of hindsight for instance, as you repeatedly quoted, a match produces fire and notice. You can say this because out of the QM this works fine and understandably so. However, within the QM, there is no such thing which leads to fire or ice specifically. It could lead to anything, fire or ice are just the things we have observed. Observation literally forks reality in the QM.

[PaulSacramento]

Not sure about that Neo because those I have spoken to about QM state that nothing can become what it has NO potential in becoming, even in a quantum flux state.
A match being struck in a quantum state may not produce fire BUT it won't produce something that it has no potential in producing, like water for example ( no molecules that can lead to H2O).
QM may through the laws of physics a curve ball ( no gravity for example) but there is NO PROOF that it can "create" something fully formed ( like a hydrogen atom) out of nothing.
There is theory to be sure, but no proof.
BUT, even if that were the case, we know that in in this reality that we have, this universe we are in and we can OBSERVE, that things ARE predictable ( if not science would simply NOT work).

[Philip]

K: I'm confused Philip, I read those links of Fuz's review. Or are you just undecided on this issue? That is, don't you embrace a human population scenario for Adam and Eve (i.e., pre-Adamic race in Gen 1 being different from Adam & Eve in Gen 2)? Yet Fuz disagrees, more aligns with my own beliefs with an Adam and Eve human origins.

K, I advocate but one thing, and that is, SOMEHOW Scripture is true - but I don't know how these things actually played out.

The scenario of greater MANKIND having possibly been created considerably prior to Adam and Eve, with Adam and Eve being the beginning of Christ's line - the text, strictly read, MIGHT be saying that. The Genesis creation accounts could also be more of a stylistic refutatation of the false Egyptian / ancient Mesopotamium mythology that Moses / God-inspired to correct them - as they are unquestionably VERY similar, yet with key differences focused around Yahweh. Scripture's wording, as many qualified scholars assert, definitely allows for progressive creationism / day and age interpretations. I'm MARRIED to none of these individual theories, as we just can't know how what is written actually played out. But I believe Scripture and what it claims about its Source and inspiration, and so, SOMEHOW, I believe it is true. I also believe God has protected the meanings of Scripture - that what was originally written can almost totally be verified, per ancient manuscripts, so many diverse copies, literary critism techniques, the Dead Sea Scrolls, as being what the writers originally wrote. Last, I believe the Creation itself shows powerful evidences that are additional witnesses to how God has created - and so I believe in OEC / billions of years timelines.

[neo-x]

Not sure about that Neo because those I have spoken to about QM state that nothing can become what it has NO potential in becoming, even in a quantum flux state.
A match being struck in a quantum state may not produce fire BUT it won't produce something that it has no potential in producing, like water for example ( no molecules that can lead to H2O).
QM may through the laws of physics a curve ball ( no gravity for example) but there is NO PROOF that it can "create" something fully formed ( like a hydrogen atom) out of nothing.
There is theory to be sure, but no proof.
BUT, even if that were the case, we know that in in this reality that we have, this universe we are in and we can OBSERVE, that things ARE predictable ( if not science would simply NOT work).

Paul, I think we are mostly in agreement because we are saying the same thing, although with a slight twist. If you reread my response and see the rewording I did to your initial sentence you will notice that my statement is all inclusive. In other words, I am saying that yes it can form fire and ice because it has that potential but I am not stopping there, I am saying it can form things we don't know about because that potential is still unobserved.

To elaborate further, within the QM it is impossible to form water or ice or a molecule. A molecule is like a whole universe compared to the quantum level, if it were the size of Earth. It is an unrealistic burden of proof IMO to say that the QM has to form something fully formed. It doesn't have to, it can just lead to initial singularity state. The rest can follow. Everything is a step by step process. Forces within the QFlux make the singularity to expand, gravity arises as a side effect of that expansion but because of gravity now the visible and invisible universe can form, planets, stars, galaxies, dark matter and dark energy and the four forces of the universe.

The Qstate led to here, but now there is no Qflux affecting the universe as it doesn't affect the observed universe. That stage has passed. Once that happens no state of uncertainty remains and therefore science is repeatable as we see. However, within the QM it isn't the case as whatever is present is present in two states at the same time and uncertainty does remain in the QM. So the universe we are in repeats and behaves predictably because it is not in the state of uncertainty anymore and hence science works.

Also to your point, the reason why some refer to nothingness in the QM is because the QField carries zero energy. It is literally nothing in the physical sense. And are often called virtual particles. This may be the difference in how the physicists use the term nothingness and how a layman uses it.

Also, Paul, could you, if possible, direct me to a source of what you said about the QM here:

Not sure about that Neo because those I have spoken to about QM state that nothing can become what it has NO potential in becoming, even in a quantum flux state.

Thanks.

[PaulSacramento]

I think we are going off on a tangent because of the QM things, which is great but kind of taking us somewhere else.

My point is that, science works because things are predictable ( not all things and not all the time) and they are predictable because they are a combination of what they are ( actuality) and what they can be ( potentiality) and what they can be only happens when something other then themselves "acts" upon them and the result can, typically, be predicted because of that the thing is and its potential to be, do you agree?